In article <36bcc785.111528...@enews.newsguy.com>,
m...@bernie.us-inc.com (Bernie) wrote: > Why didn't you send evidence to CK despite the fact that she asked for > them repeatedly? To make allegations against someone close to her and > then leave her hanging isn't very charitable. Why do you prefer to > post "proofs" to ars rather than first checking them with CK? If you > can't provide your proofs because they are client privilege or were > obtained illegally, then why do you even start out with this in > public?
as if you, of all people, would care about "being charitable to ck". this whole post of yours makes me puke. stirring the shit again, are we?
>Okay sounds pretty damning. But she was a former christian cult member, >right? How in the world did she get into Scientology® after volunteering for >CAN?
Wasn't Gary Scarff pretending to be a victim of Jonestown when he infiltrated CAN?
It doesn't seem implausible at all that she could have been undercover for years. It took a couple years for the FBI to discover Operation Snow White under their own noses.
I will consider Laura innocent until proven otherwise but it is not an impossibility.
Here's a question. Is this an official e-mail address for Bob? The post came from bobmin...@cultofscientology.net. Isn't his address b...@minton.org? Does he post from several accounts?
And can I just copy and paste his pgp signiture like this:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 Comment: Scientology's Class XII auditors Killed Lisa McPherson
} } }Bob Minton wrote: } }> My my! OSA's friends seem pretty sensitive about Laura Terepin. } }You sound like Deana Marie Holmes. Please stop trying to sink to her level. } }[heresay evidence snipped] } }Okay sounds pretty damning. But she was a former christian cult member, }right? How in the world did she get into Scientology® after volunteering for }CAN? Was she always a scientologist? This kind of deep-cover work is spooky. }How can someone keep two diametricaly opposed ideas in their head
like that?
Hopefully more details on Ms. Terepin's espionage can be revealed in time. I agree, Vreejack, someone who can be such a mole is spooky. I can't imagine trying to juggle such a diametric opposition myself. It's my guess that Terepin is someone who was recruited to fill a unique role and thereafter to be discarded.
This files contain portions of the 17-day deposition that took place in the Summer of 1993. It's clear from Scarff's sworn testimony that OSA's intention was to use him for a series of tasks, then to do away with him when he was no longer of any use. It appears from Gary's testimony that OSA'a "ideal scene" was to have Gary kill Cynthia Kisser by cutting the brake lines on her car and after verifying that she was dead he was to blow his brains out.
I know that there are those who would discredit anything that came from Mr. Scarff, but to echo the question put by other's in this thread: if he lied, then why didn't they sue him or see that he was prosecuted for perjury?
The main point here is that Scarff's deposition gives an insight into how someone gets recruited and manipulated by OSA for a deep cover and highly complex operation.
}So, Bob, are you going to start running Scientology®-style sec
checks?
It's been discussed and I've already told Bob that I would be happy to be FACTNet's lead sec checker.
Pick up the cans please... >:^/
Ishmael
P.S. Note my new signature file ;)
}Vreejack
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
**************** Meet me in Clearwater, December 5th, 1999. **************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ http://www.offlines.org/my_essay.html
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:59:53 GMT, bobmin...@cultofscientology.net (Bob
Minton) wrote: >My my! OSA's friends seem pretty sensitive about Laura Terepin.
I resent you calling anyone that critises you names. Once again I think you demonstrate your bad judgement here, Bob.
>If you have months of circumstantial evidence that make you wonder about the >veracity of a persons motivations what do you do?
Tell me what I should do, Bob? I haven't been in that situation, you know? In fact, I *still* haven't seen any "evidence". So what do you think I should do?
> We hired some PI's with >impecable credentials to check up on a few points about Laura.
Good for you. (Who are the "We", BTW?)
>Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned that one of >her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member.
Could it be that she didn't know? (Speculating about unverifyable claims is just too easy...)
>Laura cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private investigator who >seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to him that were linked to co$ >operatives.
I assume you have had her interrogated how that came about? You do have the bills to prove this, have you? And you also have proof of these people's link to $cientology, don't you?
>Laura's boyfriend, who I went dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, >works for the same PI who handled the phones.
Did you do all the investigating yourself, or just this bit? Do you have the "paper trail" to prove this working relationship?
>And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on Laura's phone >records.
What phone number did she call daily?
>Jesse and Stacy will provide more details of Laura's activities but you will >not see copies of phone records, names, ss#, DOB, etc for all the people >involved--it is all attorney client privileged material anyway.
In what legal case will this "evidence" show up, exactly?
If you're so sure about this "evidence" that you even find it suitable to ventilate your accusations on a worldwide public forum, could you please tell the world the reasons that you must have for witholding the accompanying "evidence" that is at the basis of these accusations?
Is there any law -that I'm not aware of- in the US that prevents you from publicizing evidence as soon as you get it? Would publicizing any of this put any possible legal claim in jeopardy in any way? Please explain that to me...
> If you believe >us just take it as a warning that scientology is always hard at work trying to >destroy their enemies. If you don't believe us, don't say you were not warned >by me about Laura Terepin--a whore who works for scientology.
I will not ever say I was not warned about the activities $cientology engages in to undermine their critics. But on the other hand, I will also never "believe" anything without having the evidence. I like to practice what $cientology's publicity campaigns teach: "think for yourself". That practice excludes "taking your word for it", I'm sorry.
>It was extremely difficult for Stacy to believe that for a third time >scientology had run a plant in on her. It really hurts to be betrayed so >badly.
I'm very intrigued by this "third time" bit. Any documentation for the other two times? (Sorry if I missed it.)
>But Stacy has no doubt about Laura after seeing incontrovertible evidence.
She must be in a "priviliged" position, to have seen that.
>Cynthia Kisser is also having a difficult time accepting the reality of having >worked in CAN with a scientology plant for so long.
Perhaps that is at least a bit your own fault too??
> I regret that Cynthia >dismissed allegations about Laura that were made years ago by at least one CAN >employee.
I hate to ask this, but were these allegations just as well documented as your allegations right now?
> If she had listened then, maybe CAN would still be around today.
Yeah, riight. If only we had been able to listen to Bob Minton, everything would have been better...
>We do not intend the same fate to befall FACTNet.
I do not. However, I have some grave doubts about those "Dorian" pages that (alledgedly, I haven't looked at them myself yet) seem to have appeared at their web-site. (If only people had listened to me *now*, in a couple of years things would've looked less bleak....)
>Bob Minton, >FACTNet Director
Bob, allow me to give you some well-meant advice.
As you've acknowledged this is a "war". In fact it is a war that is being fought on several "fronts". But from my vantage point, the most important "front" is the "information" front. That part of a "war" is often referred to as "propaganda" and if it is in the context of regular busyness (which is also kind of a continuing war) as "PR".
Your effort in this "war" has been tremendous, apparently. However -again from my vantage point- you have been missing some essential opportunities in which you could have won battles on precisely *that* "front". In stead of rallying people behind you, your efforts seem to succeed in dividing the ranks.
Indeed I think you might need to employ some sort of "PR" professional if you feel you can't come up with the sort of "common sense" that is needed to deal with the mayor public campaign (and don't you dare underestimating a.r.s.) you are trying to embark upon.
Please realize the "an eye for an eye" doesn't work here, because $cientology "is not a turn the other cheek" "religion". Don't even attempt to fight them with their own means. In fact, don't fight them at all. Help them expose themselves to the public. Don't let your own inability to face public scrutiny stand in the way of that, please?
Groeten, Boudewijn, Kox. "I guarantee you that isn't true," said Mike Rinder, a top official for Scientology
>>>>>My my! OSA's friends seem pretty sensitive about Laura Terepin.
>>>>Where's your evidence, Bob? You were real good about showing it to >>>>Cynthia Kisser. (In other words, you DIDN'T.)
>>>Hey - what he presented should be enough for you and me.
>>It's not. And *I* decide what's enough for me, not you, and not Minton.
>It would be enough, perhaps, *if* Minton's track record was flawless. But >with the Dorian stuff, his record is rather less than stellar.
>>>I would agree >>>that it should be shown to CK or CAN's attorneys ASAP.
>>It's been a month. She's still waiting.
>This is particularly troubling.
>But what motivation would Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks have for lying about >this? What are the possible scenarios here, and which one best fits the >evidence we do have (that evidence being that Minton and Brooks have made >particular claims)?
>If the claimed evidence is never produced for the benefit of Cynthia >Kisser or anyone else, then I'd say this is another Dorian-like hit >against their credibility.
Please don't start speculations along this line. Just wait.
Groeten, Boudewijn, Kox. "I guarantee you that isn't true," said Mike Rinder, a top official for Scientology
>Bob Minton <bobmin...@cultofscientology.net> wrote: >: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>: Jesse and Stacy will provide more details of Laura's activities but you will >: not see copies of phone records, names, ss#, DOB, etc for all the people >: involved--it is all attorney client privileged material anyway. If you believe >: us just take it as a warning that scientology is always hard at work trying to >: destroy their enemies. If you don't believe us, don't say you were not warned >: by me about L**** T******--a whore who works for scientology.
>Well folks, there you have it. Bob, in a PGP signed msg said something >which (if untrue) would ruin the reputation of this person. This is such >an open and shut case, and Bob has so much $$$$ that I would expect a suit >to be filed in about ten minutes from now *unless* what he says is true.
>Can anyone find a flaw in my logic? (I am asking for help here).
No, you've got a point. Bob has definitely raised a beacon here that will have to be answered - but I'm not even going to try tho call this one. Things are getting just plain WEIRD.
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:17:15 GMT, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote: >>Where's your evidence, Bob? You were real good about showing it to >>Cynthia Kisser. (In other words, you DIDN'T.)
>Hey - what he presented should be enough for you and me. I would agree >that it should be shown to CK or CAN's attorneys ASAP. But don't expect >Bob to post personal phone records right here. I am fully satisfied with >Bob's latest post. I hope that this will play a role in the FACTNet and >CAN trials. Ford Greene and Michael Flynn scored big after they "only" >caught someone going through garbage.
>If Laura isn't a plant - why does she call OSA every day, why does she >live with a clam staffer?
I think Deana's point was that Bob CLAIMED these things but didn't prove them. If I wrote today that I saw you come out of DM's office together with DM, both naked and in a position which is even better than what Garry visualizes in his most juicy fantasies, you would ask for some proof too, right?
There is a deep wish in us that what we read in people's posts might be the truth. We hope that we can believe in their basic goodness. We WANT to believe in their basic goodness. But it's a fact that this basic goodness has been buried deeply in some individuals, and they play with words, play with the truth, play with ourselves as they please.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training http://www.sgmt.at
>> Why didn't you send evidence to CK despite the fact that she asked for >> them repeatedly? To make allegations against someone close to her and >> then leave her hanging isn't very charitable. Why do you prefer to >> post "proofs" to ars rather than first checking them with CK? If you >> can't provide your proofs because they are client privilege or were >> obtained illegally, then why do you even start out with this in >> public?
>as if you, of all people, would care about "being charitable to ck".
Why not?
>this whole post of yours makes me puke.
Keep a bucket ready then.
>stirring the shit again, are we?
I wear my special ars asbestos suit especially equipped with ars-fitted oxygen mask - so I don't smell anything.
>>>>I would agree >>>>that it should be shown to CK or CAN's attorneys ASAP.
>>>It's been a month. She's still waiting.
>>There is no evidence for this. You just say it. If you "know" so much, >>why don't you have the records yourself?
>There is her word. Do you doubt that? Anyway, Stacy confirmed that she had >given Cynthia Kisser 'the means of verifying the information.' What she didn't >mention is that it was a dead end.
Her word? So it's her word against Bob/Stacy's word. I thought you wanted evidence?
I've no reasons to get doubts on your allegations, Bob; this said, you may know that "arscc" (wdne) is not that easily convinced without any form of proofs.
Between the good reasons to post (even individually, on mail) some proofs, there could be the fact that the analysis of those proofs by others could lead to cross-checking some of the facts in them, and to be able to dismantly some 3d party OSA's op.
> My my! OSA's friends seem pretty sensitive about Laura Terepin.
> If you have months of circumstantial evidence that make you wonder about the > veracity of a persons motivations what do you do? We hired some PI's with > impecable credentials to check up on a few points about Laura.
> Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned that one of > her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member.
> Laura cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private investigator who > seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to him that were linked to co$ > operatives.
> Laura's boyfriend, who I went dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, > works for the same PI who handled the phones.
> And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on Laura's phone > records.
> Jesse and Stacy will provide more details of Laura's activities but you will > not see copies of phone records, names, ss#, DOB, etc for all the people > involved--it is all attorney client privileged material anyway. If you believe > us just take it as a warning that scientology is always hard at work trying to > destroy their enemies. If you don't believe us, don't say you were not warned > by me about Laura Terepin--a whore who works for scientology.
> It was extremely difficult for Stacy to believe that for a third time > scientology had run a plant in on her. It really hurts to be betrayed so > badly. > But Stacy has no doubt about Laura after seeing incontrovertible evidence.
> Cynthia Kisser is also having a difficult time accepting the reality of having > worked in CAN with a scientology plant for so long. I regret that Cynthia > dismissed allegations about Laura that were made years ago by at least one CAN > employee. If she had listened then, maybe CAN would still be around today.
> We do not intend the same fate to befall FACTNet.
> Bob Minton, > FACTNet Director
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 > Comment: Scientology's Class XII auditors Killed Lisa McPherson
M. Ouimette <erm...@aimnet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:55:18 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhen...@netcom.com> >wrote:
>>Bob Minton <bobmin...@cultofscientology.net> wrote: >>: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>: Jesse and Stacy will provide more details of Laura's activities but you will >>: not see copies of phone records, names, ss#, DOB, etc for all the people >>: involved--it is all attorney client privileged material anyway. If >you believe >>: us just take it as a warning that scientology is always hard at work >trying to >>: destroy their enemies. If you don't believe us, don't say you were not warned >>: by me about L**** T******--a whore who works for scientology.
>>Well folks, there you have it. Bob, in a PGP signed msg said something >>which (if untrue) would ruin the reputation of this person. This is such >>an open and shut case, and Bob has so much $$$$ that I would expect a suit >>to be filed in about ten minutes from now *unless* what he says is true.
>>Can anyone find a flaw in my logic? (I am asking for help here).
>No, you've got a point. Bob has definitely raised a beacon here that >will have to be answered - but I'm not even going to try tho call this >one. Things are getting just plain WEIRD.
"Sue or it's true" is a pretty unreliable principle for gaining truths. There are lots of reasons someone wouldn't want to get involved in litigation to defend themselves (e.g., it could bring more unwanted attention to the claims, it could violate religious principles, it could be too expensive and time consuming, the claims could be considered too absurd for anyone to take seriously anyway, it could be easier or more effective to simply present counter-evidence, etc.). In most cases where I've seen the "sue or it's true" argument made, the person using that argument has been the one with the unfounded position. (One example--Australian geology professor Ian Plimer charged the Creation Science Foundation with "financial fraud", then claimed that it must be true since they didn't sue him. For the full story, see http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/hnta.html http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/hntr.html http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/plimer-book.html Other examples are frequently published in the tabloids.)
Arguments against suing for libelous Usenet postings may also be found in Mike Godwin's book, _Cyber Rights_. -- Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org) Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
In article <36a5a444.3448...@news.intra.bt.com>, styles-nos...@lambic.co.uk (Mark Styles) wrote: >tallu...@storm.ca (tallu...@storm.ca) rambled: >>>>>I would agree >>>>>that it should be shown to CK or CAN's attorneys ASAP.
>>>>It's been a month. She's still waiting.
>>>There is no evidence for this. You just say it. If you "know" so much, >>>why don't you have the records yourself?
>>There is her word. Do you doubt that? Anyway, Stacy confirmed that she had >>given Cynthia Kisser 'the means of verifying the information.' What she didn't
>>mention is that it was a dead end.
>Her word? So it's her word against Bob/Stacy's word. >I thought you wanted evidence?
Actually, it's her word, with Stacy's earlier confirmation in this very thread - or possibly its sister thread - versus what actually happened.
Stacy and Cynthia agreed that the PI would be authorized to give Cynthia the evidence she required. The trouble is that Stacy and Cynthia have a different defintion of 'evidence'. Stacy seems to believe that a statement - from her, from Bob, from the PI - is evidence. Words aren't evidence. Evidence would be copies of these phone records that show the 'daily calls to OSA in LA' that Bob has claimed was the clincher in proving this woman a "whore for scientology."
Since then, Bob has said we will never see that evidence. Without something more than Bob's word, I don't see how Cynthia - nor me, nor a number of other people - can be convinced that this is anything more than another one of Bob's wild claims, rather like Dorian.
When the CoS makes wild claims, and refuses to back them up with any sort of evidence, critics here fall all over themselves to point that out, as well they should. That's what being a critical thinker is all about. But it's simply ludicrious for Bob to expect that these same standards of evidence don't apply to him, simply because he's the self-styled Public Enemy Number One of the CoS.
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:55:18 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhen...@netcom.com> >wrote:
>>Bob Minton <bobmin...@cultofscientology.net> wrote: >>: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>: Jesse and Stacy will provide more details of Laura's activities but you will >>: not see copies of phone records, names, ss#, DOB, etc for all the people >>: involved--it is all attorney client privileged material anyway. If you believe >>: us just take it as a warning that scientology is always hard at work trying to >>: destroy their enemies. If you don't believe us, don't say you were not warned >>: by me about L**** T******--a whore who works for scientology.
>>Well folks, there you have it. Bob, in a PGP signed msg said something >>which (if untrue) would ruin the reputation of this person. This is such >>an open and shut case, and Bob has so much $$$$ that I would expect a suit >>to be filed in about ten minutes from now *unless* what he says is true.
>>Can anyone find a flaw in my logic?
Yes. If this is an op, and everything so far indicates it is, one could equally expect that a suit be filed against Bob because it *is* true. Don't forget that the stated purpose of suing is to harass. And don't forget that the unstated, real purpose of the suit is intel.
>No, you've got a point. Bob has definitely raised a beacon here that >will have to be answered - but I'm not even going to try tho call this >one. Things are getting just plain WEIRD.
>Subject: Re: Laura Terepin >From: "G. SCARFF" <garr...@earthlink.net> >Date: 1/20/99 12:07 AM Central > Get real. Why should Bob libel a completely innocent person? Kindof "I >> haven't been in the news much, so I'll take a random volunteer and claim >> she is a plant" Gaarry Scarff wrote: >Why not ask Laura herself? During a reception for Ursula Caberta last >October, Laura >commented about the "posting war" between me and Jim Beebe, saying that she >has consistently >read the postings on ARS for a long time but has never posted. >Perhaps, she is reading this now! Laura?
I would like to comment on this and Garry's previous post. First: I did engage in a vicious posting war with Garry Scarff. I found myself turning down a dark path that I had not intended. I finally woke up and apologized to Garry. He in turn apologized to me.
That experience, for me, sheds some light on what is going on with the disturbing Laura--Bob Minton exchange. It is very easy to get suspicious and even paranoid in this movement to expose the crimes and frauds of the scientology cult.
I share Garry's dismay at the allegations that have been made about Laura. I am completely turned around about this whole thing. At the same time, I feel that Bob Minton and Stacy are sincere but been caught up in the same suspicious and accusatory void that I got ensnared with in my flame with Garry. I believe Bob to be very wrong in the vicious way that he presented unsubstansiated allegations.
Laura is going to issue a statement and. I will have more to say. For now I must say that I am impressed and thankful for the outpouring of support for Laura from the very alert and caring people on the ARS. Laura called me yesterday morning , crying her heart out. These were not fake tears. She said that only the support from Cynthia Kisser and the ARSers got her through the night.
I completely support Cynthia Kisser's staatement on this matter.
In article <36a5a444.3448...@news.intra.bt.com>, styles-nos...@lambic.co.uk (Mark Styles) wrote: >tallu...@storm.ca (tallu...@storm.ca) rambled: >>>>>I would agree >>>>>that it should be shown to CK or CAN's attorneys ASAP.
>>>>It's been a month. She's still waiting.
>>>There is no evidence for this. You just say it. If you "know" so much, >>>why don't you have the records yourself?
>>There is her word. Do you doubt that? Anyway, Stacy confirmed that she had >>given Cynthia Kisser 'the means of verifying the information.' What she didn't
>>mention is that it was a dead end.
>Her word? So it's her word against Bob/Stacy's word. >I thought you wanted evidence?
Actually, it's her word, with Stacy's earlier confirmation in this very thread - or possibly its sister thread - versus what actually happened.
Stacy and Cynthia agreed that the PI would be authorized to give Cynthia the evidence she required. The trouble is that Stacy and Cynthia have a different defintion of 'evidence'. Stacy seems to believe that a statement - from her, from Bob, from the PI - is evidence. Words aren't evidence. Evidence would be copies of these phone records that show the 'daily calls to OSA in LA' that Bob has claimed was the clincher in proving this woman a "whore for scientology."
Since then, Bob has said we will never see that evidence. Without something more than Bob's word, I don't see how Cynthia - nor me, nor a number of other people - can be convinced that this is anything more than another one of Bob's wild claims, rather like Dorian.
When the CoS makes wild claims, and refuses to back them up with any sort of evidence, critics here fall all over themselves to point that out, as well they should. That's what being a critical thinker is all about. But it's simply ludicrious for Bob to expect that these same standards of evidence don't apply to him, simply because he's the self-styled Public Enemy Number One of the CoS.
M. Ouimette <erm...@aimnet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:55:18 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhen...@netcom.com> >wrote:
>>Bob Minton <bobmin...@cultofscientology.net> wrote: >>: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>: Jesse and Stacy will provide more details of Laura's activities but you will >>: not see copies of phone records, names, ss#, DOB, etc for all the people >>: involved--it is all attorney client privileged material anyway. If >you believe >>: us just take it as a warning that scientology is always hard at work >trying to >>: destroy their enemies. If you don't believe us, don't say you were not warned >>: by me about L**** T******--a whore who works for scientology.
>>Well folks, there you have it. Bob, in a PGP signed msg said something >>which (if untrue) would ruin the reputation of this person. This is such >>an open and shut case, and Bob has so much $$$$ that I would expect a suit >>to be filed in about ten minutes from now *unless* what he says is true.
>>Can anyone find a flaw in my logic? (I am asking for help here).
>No, you've got a point. Bob has definitely raised a beacon here that >will have to be answered - but I'm not even going to try tho call this >one. Things are getting just plain WEIRD.
"Sue or it's true" is a pretty unreliable principle for gaining truths. There are lots of reasons someone wouldn't want to get involved in litigation to defend themselves (e.g., it could bring more unwanted attention to the claims, it could violate religious principles, it could be too expensive and time consuming, the claims could be considered too absurd for anyone to take seriously anyway, it could be easier or more effective to simply present counter-evidence, etc.). In most cases where I've seen the "sue or it's true" argument made, the person using that argument has been the one with the unfounded position. (One example--Australian geology professor Ian Plimer charged the Creation Science Foundation with "financial fraud", then claimed that it must be true since they didn't sue him. For the full story, see http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/hnta.html http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/hntr.html http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/plimer-book.html Other examples are frequently published in the tabloids.)
Arguments against suing for libelous Usenet postings may also be found in Mike Godwin's book, _Cyber Rights_. -- Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org) Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
On 20 Jan 1999 18:46:28 GMT, jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote thusly:
The first question on my mind is why isn't Ms. Terepin talking to Bob or Stacy or someone at FACTNet? She calls Jim crying (ostensibly) about the horrible allegations which Jim had no part in making nor was he involved in Terepin's alledged espionage. It doesn't make much sense to me.
And why her delay in making a statement in her defence? The sooner the better, no?
}>Subject: Re: Laura Terepin }>From: "G. SCARFF" <garr...@earthlink.net> }>Date: 1/20/99 12:07 AM Central } }> Get real. Why should Bob libel a completely innocent person? Kindof "I }>> haven't been in the news much, so I'll take a random volunteer and claim }>> she is a plant" } }Gaarry Scarff wrote: } }>Why not ask Laura herself? During a reception for Ursula Caberta last }>October, Laura }>commented about the "posting war" between me and Jim Beebe, saying that she }>has consistently }>read the postings on ARS for a long time but has never posted. } }>Perhaps, she is reading this now! Laura? } }I would like to comment on this and Garry's previous post. First: I did }engage in a vicious posting war with Garry Scarff. I found myself turning down }a dark path that I had not intended. I finally woke up and apologized to }Garry. He in turn apologized to me. } }That experience, for me, sheds some light on what is going on with the }disturbing Laura--Bob Minton exchange. It is very easy to get suspicious and }even paranoid in this movement to expose the crimes and frauds of the }scientology cult. } }I share Garry's dismay at the allegations that have been made about Laura. I }am completely turned around about this whole thing. At the same time, I feel }that Bob Minton and Stacy are sincere but been caught up in the same suspicious }and accusatory void that I got ensnared with in my flame with Garry. I }believe Bob to be very wrong in the vicious way that he presented }unsubstansiated allegations. } }Laura is going to issue a statement and. I will have more to say. For now I }must say that I am impressed and thankful for the outpouring of support for }Laura from the very alert and caring people on the ARS. Laura called me }yesterday morning , crying her heart out. These were not fake tears. She said }that only the support from Cynthia Kisser and the ARSers got her through the }night. } }I completely support Cynthia Kisser's staatement on this matter. } }Jim Beebe }
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
**************** Meet me in Clearwater, December 5th, 1999. **************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ http://www.offlines.org/my_essay.html
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote: > If Laura isn't a plant - why does she call OSA every day, why does she > live with a clam staffer?
Perhaps CoS has been running a plant on _her_. Perhaps it was the alleged staffer she shared an appartment with who phoned OSA, not she. Sometimes the truth is friendlier than you fear it might be.
Also, I must say that 'm _very_ relieved to read something more than just unexplained allegations. If you accuse somebody personally and disclose their identity, saying: 'explanations will follow later', it won't do. Not at all.
> >> Why didn't you send evidence to CK despite the fact that she asked for > >> them repeatedly? To make allegations against someone close to her and > >> then leave her hanging isn't very charitable. Why do you prefer to > >> post "proofs" to ars rather than first checking them with CK? If you > >> can't provide your proofs because they are client privilege or were > >> obtained illegally, then why do you even start out with this in > >> public?
> >as if you, of all people, would care about "being charitable to ck".
> Why not?
> >this whole post of yours makes me puke.
> Keep a bucket ready then.
> >stirring the shit again, are we?
> I wear my special ars asbestos suit especially equipped with > ars-fitted oxygen mask - so I don't smell anything.
> Thanks for letting me know that it stinks :-)
ROFL. Good one, Bernie!
E -- Note: Correct e-mail address is e...@ermes.it.
"My Aunt Prissy said I could choose anything I liked, because I had grown to be such a fine strong boy. I chose the two china dogs on the mantelpiece. They are on my mantelpiece at this moment, listening with their long ears to every word I am writing down. I like my two china dogs. When I write down anything wicked, one of them look very serious; but the other one, he wink." From the novel, ~The Book of Ebenezer Le Page~, by G. B. Edwards.
tallu...@storm.ca <tallu...@storm.ca> wrote: >[repost due to accidental cancel by Tilman]
>In article <36a5a444.3448...@news.intra.bt.com>, >styles-nos...@lambic.co.uk (Mark Styles) wrote: >>tallu...@storm.ca (tallu...@storm.ca) rambled: >>>>>>I would agree >>>>>>that it should be shown to CK or CAN's attorneys ASAP.
>>>>>It's been a month. She's still waiting.
>>>>There is no evidence for this. You just say it. If you "know" so much, >>>>why don't you have the records yourself?
>>>There is her word. Do you doubt that? Anyway, Stacy confirmed that she had >>>given Cynthia Kisser 'the means of verifying the information.' What she didn't
>>>mention is that it was a dead end.
>>Her word? So it's her word against Bob/Stacy's word. >>I thought you wanted evidence?
>Actually, it's her word, with Stacy's earlier confirmation in this very thread >- or possibly its sister thread - versus what actually happened.
>Stacy and Cynthia agreed that the PI would be authorized to give Cynthia the >evidence she required. The trouble is that Stacy and Cynthia have a different >defintion of 'evidence'. Stacy seems to believe that a statement - from her, >from Bob, from the PI - is evidence. Words aren't evidence. Evidence would be >copies of these phone records that show the 'daily calls to OSA in LA' that >Bob has claimed was the clincher in proving this woman a "whore for >scientology."
Testimonial evidence is evidence. It's of a different kind than phone records, but it is evidence nonetheless. Even a document is a form of testimony, by the way. It can often be faked more easily and convincingly than testimony, since it can't be asked questions. -- Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org) Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
In article <19990120134628.01137.00000...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
JimDBB <jim...@aol.com> wrote: >Laura is going to issue a statement and. I will have more to say. For now I >must say that I am impressed and thankful for the outpouring of support for >Laura from the very alert and caring people on the ARS. Laura called me >yesterday morning , crying her heart out. These were not fake tears. She said >that only the support from Cynthia Kisser and the ARSers got her through the >night.
This is evidence (testimonial evidence again, and evidence that I accept) that Laura has clearly not "flown the coop" as some have claimed. -- Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org) Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
>Subject: Re: Laura Terepin >From: lipp...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) >JimDBB <jim...@aol.com> wrote: >>Laura is going to issue a statement and. I will have more to say. For now >I >>must say that I am impressed and thankful for the outpouring of support for >>Laura from the very alert and caring people on the ARS. Laura called me >>yesterday morning , crying her heart out. These were not fake tears. She >said >>that only the support from Cynthia Kisser and the ARSers got her through the >>night.
>This is evidence (testimonial evidence again, and evidence that I accept) >that Laura has clearly not "flown the coop" as some have claimed. >-- >Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org) >Phoenix, Arizona
In fact I have read Laura's statement and it is a very good one. But it was written before the sick and degraded post from Jessie Prince. I have urged her to put it out but she may be too devastated now to do anything.
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:21:20 GMT, kspa...@xenu.org (Karin Spaink) wrote: >til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote: >> If Laura isn't a plant - why does she call OSA every day, why does she >> live with a clam staffer?
DOES she though? and DID she? i have seen not a SPECK of evidence, much less convincing evidence. i have seen a lot of CLAIMS of forthcoming evidence, followed by "neener neener you can't have it" games. i have also seen a couple wild blow-job stories which also fail to be entirely convincing, comments about catfish-pussies and the like.
somehow i fail to be convinced by this wild hand-waving and sleaze-mongering.
>Perhaps CoS has been running a plant on _her_. Perhaps it >was the alleged staffer she shared an appartment with who >phoned OSA, not she. Sometimes the truth is friendlier than >you fear it might be. >Also, I must say that 'm _very_ relieved to read something >more than just unexplained allegations. If you accuse >somebody personally and disclose their identity, saying: >'explanations will follow later', it won't do. Not at all.
i agree, too. this business of denunciations is beginning to remind me of mccarthy waving about his supposed list of "a zillion communist spies in the government." mccarthy dissolved and drifted off to drink himself to death shortly after being called on his evidence.
so far, without EVIDENCE, none of these claims are even worth the electrons wasted in making the claims on the global internet. without EVIDENCE, this is all faith-healing bullshit.
and in a situation FAR WORSE than the dorian crap, this stuff is (if false) hurting an innocent person, who has been so devastated by these accusations that she has called jim beebe to weep inconsolately as her life is ruined.
i think ruining someone's life in the noisy investigation manner of scientology requires SERIOUS EVIDENCE. and i don't think that JACK SHIT cuts it.
>>I think Deana's point was that Bob CLAIMED these things but >>didn't prove them. If I wrote today that I saw you come out
>rather, he didn't prove them to *Deana*. It is simply a "why didn't they >invite me to their party" attitude.
Tilman,
Not hardly.
If you were DAed by Scn, I'd be all over wgert asking for the evidence.
Why aren't you all over Bob Minton asking for the evidence that Laura Terepin is an OSA spy?
Deana Marie Holmes / member of the "Gang of Three" (Rod Keller) The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list) $cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today? mir...@xmission.com
